Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: hippie64 Date: Dec 3, 2009 6:12pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Only read this if you'd had a ms rejected...

I like Scientific American (what I can understand of it) Am I being duped? Or is is it a slam on on the acedemic ? (I think I know the anwser to that, but it doesn't take much to go over my head) Ich mochte frei sein !

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 3, 2009 6:36pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Only read this if you'd had a ms rejected...

ScAm is more of a "popular" press outlet, so it's really a different beast...it might be along the lines of saying "well, the NYTimes and WashPost won't publish my book review, so I'll do it in Rolling Stone" (not a good analogy, but you get the idea). There have been many good papers published in ScAm, but in general it would be viewed not so much as "lower in status" but as too "popular" if that makes any sense...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: amosearle Date: Dec 3, 2009 7:46pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Only read this if you'd had a ms rejected...

I read journal articles in my good chair and at my desk. I read SCI AM on the couch and the pooper.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 4, 2009 5:44am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Only read this if you'd had a ms rejected...

Ha! Classic...